If Only He'd Had A Gun To Defend Himself. Oh, Wait.... (Open Carry Samaritan)

Jason Erik Washington was on the campus of Portland State University when he witnessed an argument between two men, one of whom used a racial slur. The men began to fight each other.

That's when, armed with his openly-carried handgun and a valid conceal carry permit, he leaped into the fight to try to break it up.

Meanwhile, two armed university police officers were already arriving to do the same thing. Washington continued to try to break up the fighters even as the police were attempting to do so.

A witness took a video of the incident. Here's a screenshot from that video where I highlighted the gun hanging off his hip, at 18 seconds into it:

From an article: 

Video footage shows what appears to be a black object attached to Washington’s right side as he’s seen pulling one man off another. Two PSU police officers can also be seen. 

“The gun slipped out of the holster when he had fallen, and I think he may have tried to retrieve it,” Smith said. “Then they said ‘gun.’” 

That’s when police fired, she said.

Watch the video and judge for yourself. You can hear the police telling him to drop his gun. And, one witness....

....recalled the man reaching for his gun after police told him three or four times not to. 

"They warned him multiple times not to reach for it, but he did," Dietz said. "I don't want the message out there that the cops were trigger-happy." Dietz said employees at the Cheerful Tortoise did everything they could to stop the situation from escalating like it did.  "It's just that people got drunk and stubborn," he added.  "They had to do it," he said of the officers involved. "People think they were overzealous, but they had to do it."

One friend of his, named Joseph, had this to say:

"I saw the video, and there is no way he should have been shot," Joseph said. "I wish he didn't have a gun on him, because this probably wouldn't have happened if he didn't."

According to an article:

Washington was a Navy veteran and an employee with the United States Postal Service since 1998. He worked with the collections unit as a letter carrier at the main office in downtown Portland, where he also served as the union shop steward. 

Washington was married with three kids and one grandchild.

And now those kids, wife, and grandchild have lost him in their lives, because he chose to arm himself, and because those police reacted the way they did.  This is also an example of how being a military veteran doesn't automatically make you more responsible with your guns.

PSU voted to arm its police force in 2015, despite opposition from students.


[this post is part of an ongoing series of people being shot to death despite being armed (and sometimes because they are armed)]
.

Extreme Pro-Gun Sheriff Arrested for Violent Assault And Strangulation

Back last spring, when Oregon legislators were working to pass Senate Bill 941 to require background checks for all gun sales in the state, including private sales (which passed in May and was enacted in August, much to the relief of most law enforcement), a small number of rural sheriffs said that they would refuse to enforce the law (against the oath that they took), and a number of county commissions in rural counties said they would not fund the law (also against the oath they took).

The extremist group, Oregon Firearms Federation, led the charge in encouraging these sheriffs and county commissions.

Sheriff Skrah speaks against keeping
guns out of criminal hands (source)

One of those sheriffs was Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah.  Klamath County commissioners condemned the background check law by passing a resolution.  O.F.F. was happy to report that Sheriff Skrah testified in support of the pro-gun resolution.  From an article:

“I will not be taking away guns from anybody. I will not be going out and confiscating guns,” said Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah. “People have the right to bear arms, and I will not abridge that right to bear arms. Ever. I’ll say it again: ever.”

Just to be clear, Sheriff Skrah is saying he will refuse to uphold his oath and enforce a law that he, personally, doesn't like, and won't be "confiscating guns" -- even if the person purchasing the guns has failed a background check!  Yes, you read that right.  If a person purchases a gun in a private sale, and fails a background check or refuses to have a background check (such as if they were a felon or dangerously mentally ill), Sheriff Skrah would refuse to arrest them or take their gun away.

Just another way that the pro-gun forces were willing to encourage criminal behavior.  Sadly, Oregon is no stranger to pro-gun, insurrectionist rural sheriffs.

Skrah released a statement railing against the background check bill and intrusion by "Big Brother."  Excerpts from his statement:

While I, as Sheriff of Klamath County, support keeping guns out of the hands of “CRIMINALS” this legislation (SB–941) appears to be nothing more than a further infringement upon those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.  

"Some may disagree with me, but I feel “Big Brother” need not know who owns a firearm. 

"We don’t need new laws to check the background of those who have the legal right to own a gun. We conduct background checks on those who “carry” (Concealed Carry Handgun Permits) and we do a very good job in that endeavor.  

"Upping the ante and requiring more Government Intrusion is not needed and not wanted by the vast majority of good hard working folks.  

"If I sell or give a gun to my neighbor should I or my neighbor be subject to a background check? My answer to that rhetorical question is a very firm NO! 

"Typical of government is to stack another law upon us!   Folks in Salem: ….. We have that little obscure document called the United States Constitution.  

"It might be good for those in the state Legislature (as well as Washington D.C.) to look at that document.   Read down to the Second Amendment: The right (our right) to keep and bear arms! ….. Without bureaucrats trying to make more decisions for us. I, as the Sheriff of Klamath County, will use the laws that are presently on the books to do my job.

Sadly, his love of guns has clouded his judgement.  He says he "supports" keeping guns out of criminal hands, but how is a gun seller to know if the buyer is a criminal without a background check?  And not all buyers have conceal carry permits or are a neighbor of Skrah.  And though he purports to be an expert in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already stated in the Heller decision that background checks and other regulations are not unconstitutional (and Skrah, as with most pro-gun zealots, seems to forget the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment).  It is also not the role of sheriffs or county commissions to determine what is constitutional or not.  That's for the courts to decide.

Well, that was in April.  Flash forward to this month....

Now Sheriff Skrah has been charged with nine counts of violent crime by a grand jury, including assault and strangulation.  From an article:

A Klamath County grand jury charged Skrah with a total of nine counts, including three counts of harassment, three counts of official misconduct in the first degree, one count of attempted assault in the fourth degree, one count of assault in the fourth degree and one count of strangulation. .... 

The charges came after the Oregon Department of Justice launched an investigation in April into allegations Skrah had used excessive force against a suspect. Seven of the department's 30 deputies asked to be placed on paid leave after they were questioned about Skrah by state investigators. ... 

Sheriff Skrah's mugshot (source)

The charges stem from Skrah's dealings with three men, James Johnson, Kenneth Bragg and Jason Charles. In three separate incidents, Skrah allegedly held a flashlight against Johnson's throat on Feb. 11, 2013; he allegedly hit Charles on Jan. 14, 2014; and prosecutors claim he choked Bragg on Feb. 27, 2015. 

The Oregonian first reported the the Skrah investigation involved reports he had used excessive force, including hitting a handcuffed suspect, on Aug. 25.
The indictment also alleges Skrah failed to notify and compensate a local resident after one of his deputies had damaged their property.

Of course, Skrah denies all charges, like criminals often do.  

There is also a concern about him "for workplace harassment and retaliation by the Sheriff."

Should we be surprised?  Based on his pro-gun testimony, I'm guessing that Sheriff Skrah owns a great many guns.  According to a Washington Post report, those who own a large number of guns are significantly more likely to have explosive anger issues.

Well, he may not be able to own his guns anymore, after this.  Will the next Sheriff allow Skrah to purchase guns without a background check, too?

Let's hope that Klamath County has learned its lesson and will replace Skrah with a more reasonable Sheriff who is more peaceful and is willing to uphold the law, including enforcement of background checks for all gun sales.

Why Does Iceland Have So Few Officer-Involved Shootings Compared To The U.S.?

It's the scenario that all law enforcement officers train for, but hope never to use:  a seemingly routine traffic stop or investigation of a suspect suddenly turns into a life-and-death shootout.  It happens all the time in the United States, where there are as many guns as there are citizens.

In just the last two weeks here in Oregon, there have been five law enforcement shootings that I'm aware of:

• December 6: Silverton, Oregon:  Sheriff's deputies chased a suspect in a stolen vehicle. While searching for the suspect, there was a shootout between the suspect and at least a couple deputies in a Christmas tree field.  Both the suspect and one of the deputies were wounded.
• December 6: Halsey, Oregon:  A Salem police detective was passed by a reckless driver on Interstate 5. When the detective pulled over the driver, the driver then got out and threatened the detective with a gun.  The detective then shot and wounded the driver.
• December 3: Fairview, Oregon:  Police and sheriff's deputies performed a welfare check on a man acting erratically at an apartment.  The suspect then fired upon by the officers, and was subsequently shot and wounded.
• November 23: Bend, Oregon:  An officer responding to a reported break-in shot and killed the suspect.
• November 21: Eugene, Oregon: A school resource officer at Churchill High School made a traffic stop of a man who was riding a mini-bike next to school. The driver then attacked the officer, armed with a gun, knife, and hatchet. The officer then shot and killed the suspect on school grounds.

That's one law enforcement personnel injured, three suspects wounded, and two suspects killed, in just two weeks, in Oregon.

And those, of course, don't represent the many other non-law enforcement shootings and gun crimes in Oregon in that time.  You can see these and others reported at the Oregon Shootings Facebook page.

It was with those shootings in mind that I read a surprising article about Iceland.  You see, on Monday, December 2, Iceland had its first-ever fatal shooting of a suspect by law enforcement.  The suspect died.

That's right.  Let me re-state this for the record:  In the 69-year history of independent Iceland, no law enforcement person there has ever had to shoot to death a suspect while in the line of duty!

In fact, most police don't even carry firearms.  Violent crime is almost non-existent there.  From an article:

"The nation does not want its police force to carry weapons because it's dangerous, it's threatening," Arnorsdottir says. "It's a part of the culture. Guns are used to go hunting as a sport, but you never see a gun." 

In fact, Iceland isn't anti-gun. In terms of per-capita gun ownership, Iceland ranks 15th in the world. Still, this incident was so rare that neighbors of the man shot were comparing the shooting to a scene from an American film.  

The Icelandic police department said officers involved will go through grief counseling. And the police department has already apologized to the family of the man who died — though not necessarily because they did anything wrong. 

"I think it's respectful," Arnorsdottir says, "because no one wants to take another person's life. "There are still a number of questions to be answered, including why police didn't first try to negotiate with man before entering his building. 

"A part of the great thing of living in this country is that you can enter parliament and the only thing they ask you to do is to turn off your cellphone, so you don't disturb the parliamentarians while they're talking. We do not have armed guards following our prime minister or president. That's a part of the great thing of living in a peaceful society. We do not want to change that. " 

Did you catch the details there??  The police department apologized to the suspect's family!  And even the prime minister and president don't have armed guards!

And neighbors "were comparing the shooting to a scene from an American film."  There's a reason why other countries compare such shootings to America.

Iceland rates 15th for civilian gun ownership rate out of 178 countries, according to www.gunpolicy.org (the U.S. is 1st).  There are 30.3 guns for every 100 citizens there (the U.S. now has 101/100 people).  These guns are almost exclusively used for hunting and target shooting, not self-defense. Despite all these guns, there have only been 5 shooting deaths in the last year in Iceland, with four of those being suicides.  Compare that to about 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S., 11,000 of those being homicides (you can also see crime statistics at the Icelandic police page).

So what is Iceland doing right?  According to one article, there is almost no drug problem, and because Iceland is a socialist nation, there is almost no class distinction.  But the real kicker is gun regulation.

Despite being awash with guns, those guns are heavily regulated to keep them from falling into the wrong hands.  Unlike the United States, Iceland requires gun licensing, gun registration, strict recordkeeping by dealers and manufacturers, and markings and tracing of all guns owned and sold.  Iceland also takes part in all United Nations programs to prevent illegal trade of small arms, such as the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the U.N. Firearms Protocol, neither of which the U.S. has signed.  As with other such nations around the world that have such regulations, shootings are almost non-existent.

If only it could be the same here!  Unfortunately, police have to arm themselves against the legion of criminals and mentally insane who can, so easily, arm themselves with guns in America.  Sadly, far too many have to draw their weapons in the line of duty, and a disturbing number wind up getting shot by the suspect.  The Officer Down Memorial webpage memorializes them.  At least 27 have been shot to death in the line of duty in 2013.  Recently I wrote about one who died here in Oregon in early November, reserve officer Robert Libke, shot to death by a mentally-unstable man who had set fire to his own home.

Sadly, here in America, we have a culture of violence, where the "open carry" gun crowd, like this advocate, call for open insurrection and even attacking police if they "feel" their rights as gun owners are being infringed.  "Do you have the spine to cross that line?" said that advocate.  With an atmosphere like that, and easy availability of guns to criminals, it is little wonder that police have a dangerous job here.

Our men and women in blue are heroes every day.  Let's protect them by demanding rational gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

Yet Another Tragic Example Of A Failure In Gun Regulation

Reserve officer Robert Libke (image source)

Last Sunday, firefighters and police responded to a house fire in the town of Oregon City, Oregon, a suburb of Portland.  The neighbors called it in, saying that a house was ablaze and that the man who lived there was "running around on the property with a gun."  That man was 88-year-old Lawrence Cambra, armed with a rifle and a handgun.  According to an article:

Josh Wenzel, 25, saw flames and rushed to help. Cambra came out of his garage with his hair singed and covered in soot. "I did this," Wenzel heard him say. "I started the fire." 

"He didn't seem to be in his right mind," Wenzel said. "He wasn't frantic or worried."

One of the first to arrive was a reserve officer, 41-year old Robert Libke.  Libke confronted Cambra, yelling twice for Cambra to drop his weapon.  Cambra responded by shooting Libka in the face (see HERE for details on the shooting and response).

SWAT responded and traded fire with Cambra and hitting him.  Cambra died at the scene, but the fatal wound turned out to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The house fire, which was almost certainly arson, was eventually extinguished by the fire department after several hours. 

Sadly, officer Libke died from his wound.  He was the first Oregon City officer to be killed in the line of duty since 1906.  Reserve officers like Libke are volunteers, meaning he was protecting his community without even getting paid to do so.  Our men and women in blue are heroes every day, but Libke was especially so, since he purposely put himself in harm's way for the good of the community without even getting compensated for it.  According to an article:

Outside of being a volunteer Oregon City cop, Libke worked at the steel mill where Demus works. Libke held a full-time job as supervisor at the EVRAZ Oregon steel mill. EVRAZ has a structural and rolling mill in Portland, Ore.

He also leaves behind a wife who is pregnant with their first child, making this horror story all the more tragic.

In recognition of Libke's ultimate sacrifice, a procession of police cars escorted his body to the funearl home, a candlelight vigil was held by members of his community, and, according to an article, the Governor’s Commission for the Medal of Honor voted unanimously to present reserve officer Libke’s family with the Medal of Ultimate Sacrifice.

Although Libke volunteered his services, his family is eligible to be considered for Oregon Public Safety Memorial Fund benefits, including a $25,000 lump sum payment. A board may approve discretionary benefits including health and dental reimbursement for Libke’s family, mortgage payments for up to a year and scholarship considerations for his unborn child, according to the State Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. 

As for his life when not volunteering to protect his community,Libke had also worked at Evraz, a North Portland steel company, where he was a general supervisor in charge of 60 people. His coworkers were shocked by Libke's death.

"I think he thought he was there to calm a guy down whose house was on fire," said Bruce Iredale, Vice President of Evraz. "He wanted to help people and he was good at it." 

A fund has been set up in Libke's name, and a memorial is being planned.

But what about the monster who committed this heinous act?  Well, it turns out that Cambra wasn't

Shooter Lawrence Cambra (source)

a nice man.  Police had responded to his home dozens of times.  He had a history of violence which included pulling a gun on some painters who had wanted him to move his car out of the way of potentially being splashed with paint.  When someone complained about him keeping homing pigeons in his back yard, Cambra responded by shooting all the pigeons to death instead of moving them.  Said one ex-neighbor of Cambra's,

“I avoided him,” Cook said. “I knew what he was capable of. So - he wouldn't say a thing to you, he'd just go get a gun and shoot you.” 

His most recent neighbors were also in fear of the man, saying he was unfriendly, untrustworthy, and angry.  One of those neighbors reported that Cambra had been in a fight with his longtime domestic partner, who left in a huff just before the fire and craziness began.  It turns out that Cambra had once had a restraining order against him, filed by that partner, which was eventually dropped.  From an article:

"His girlfriend or wife left maybe 30 minutes before fire started at house," said neighbor Pam Laird. "She was nervous, trying to call somebody." 

Court records show the girlfriend filed a restraining order against Cambra in 2012, and that officers have been called to the home nearly a dozen times. 

In her own handwriting his girlfriend says "Cambra said he was going to get a gun and get rid of a few people and himself -- and that I 'should watch my back.'" 

Court documents indicate the restraining order was later withdrawn. But neighbors recall a mean streak with the 88-year-old man. 

"He caused a lot of enemies in the neighborhood," said one. 

The last time Laird saw Cambra alive, he was pounding on her back door and trying to get in. She refused.
....

"I've never let him in my house," Laird said. "He wasn't a nice man, ever."

Wow.  And yet, despite the history of drawing a gun on people, shooting to death his own pets, anger issues, and even having had a restraining order against him, it was perfectly legal for this man to own as many guns as he wished.

This is the sad result. 

But stories like this happen all the time in America, so much so that it hardly rises above regional news headlines.  It's not even the first time that people have fired on emergency personnel responding to a fire.  Consider this case from New York, this case from Nevada, this one from Iowa, or this one from Alabama.

It's a dilemma that I've personally heard from officers, deputies, and even my police chief.  They are always bumping up against the current definition of gun rights and the Fourth Amendment.  It doesn't matter how violent and crazy a person is or how much he is feared by the community, friends, and family -- if he hasn't been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, doesn't have a warrant for his arrest, and hasn't yet committed a felony, there isn't anything they can do.  That lunatic is free to amass as large of an arsenal as he wishes and there's nothing anyone can do about it....

... until he pulls the trigger.

The Oregon City shooting is a prime example of how we need to change the law.  We need to stop putting "gun rights" over the welfare of the people and their right to live without fear.  We need to have the law take into account the opinion of relatives and neighbors on the gun owner's level of sanity and self control (as Japan and Canada do).  And we need to have a mental health system that more clearly defines when a person can be referred by police to psychiatric evaluation and when an individual is determined to be a threat to themselves and others, to have them held and to have their gun rights revoked until they are determined to no longer be a threat.

The best way to honor the memory of Officer Libke is by working to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics like Cambra.

The Pro-Gun Extremist's Opinion On "Law Enforcement" (Part II)

In my last post, I illustrated an example of the disdain of pro-gun extremists for law enforcement with a recent article about how a group of gun-totin' yahoos in southern Oregon voted against measures to help fund their Sheriff's department and jail, then, citing a subsequent decrease in Sheriff's patrols due to cutbacks and a resultant increase in property crimes, decided to form their own posse to patrol their county themselves -- armed, of course, with none of the special legal, conflict, or investigative training that police receive.

Two more stories below....

Recently, in San Antonio, Texas, a clothing store owner, Debra Trejo, kept having her store broken into over the course of several years.  Instead of installing cameras, or keeping a dog there, or hardening her store with bars and better locks, she decided to do something decidedly more violent.  She decided to advertise a $10,000 reward for any law enforcement person to shoot to kill anyone breaking into her store.  Looks like a classy establishment, what with the trash in the lawn in front of the crumbling garage door / storefront.

From an article (the source of the image posted here):

Now Trejo is using a different tactic to deter crooks: A sign on the business offers a $10,000 reward to any law enforcement officer who shoots - and kills - burglars caught breaking into the store. 

There haven't been any break-ins since. 

I'm glad there haven't been any further break-ins, but this is the wrong way to go about it.  Now, knowing the potential for being shot, the robbers will bring guns of their own, and may expect to use it. 

First, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for police to shoot someone to death simply because they are breaking into a store; they have to threaten the officer first.  Second, it would also be illegal for that policeman to accept money for doing the killing.  Sorry, Ms. Trejo, but you can't just offer to have police be your hired hitmen.

(by the way, go to the article to see some interesting comments from the pro-gunners, wishing the store owner would extend the shoot-to-kill reward to non-law enforcement people, and other extreme comments, including one directed at me, personally, wishing that I had died in the shooting I was in, and another accusing me of being a thief).

In other news, in a similarly gun-friendly state, Florida (the gunshine state), a Constitution Party candidate is running for Sheriff of Marion County.  A favorite of the Tea Party there, Bernie DeCastro debated with Republican Sheriff Chris Blair at a Tea Party-sponsored debate.  After Blair had said he would collect guns that had been strewn in the streets after a Hurricane Katrina-like disaster, DeCastro went on the offensive and accused Blair of wanting to confiscate everyone's guns (a common pro-gun paranoid fantasy):

While both men insisted they are ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, Constitution Party candidate Bernie DeCastro went on the attack to cast doubt about Republican Chris Blair's support for absolute gun rights. 

DeCastro said that during a recent interview the two men did with an Orlando news network they both talked about how they would have handled the crisis in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Blair, DeCastro said, stated that he would have confiscated guns in the lawlessness that ensued following the storm. 

Blair denied the charge, saying that DeCastro had taken his words out of context. He accused his opponent of using sound bites to misrepresent his position. Blair said he only would have collected guns that had been strewn in the street by the storm and returned them to their "rightful owners," but that he would not have taken guns from any law-abiding citizens. 

DeCastro, meanwhile, left no doubt where he stands on gun rights. 

"If (Florida) Governor Scott said a major hurricane is coming and I want you to go collect all the guns, I am not going to do it," he said. "Once we lose our guns, you know what time it is, folks. It's all over."

Blair apparently WANTS unclaimed guns lose in the streets after a disaster, in the hands of whomever should happen to find them.

This is particularly interesting, given the background of these two candidates.  According to that article, Blair is "a 35-year lawman with the Marion County Sheriff's Office" who has a plan to "reduce the Sheriff's Office's "top-heavy" administration and put more deputies on the road."  Experience is good, and it sounds to me like a level-headed approach.

Blair spoke about traditional policing methods. He said he wanted to lower the county's violent crime rate, which he said is 15th worst in the state. And he preached about using data and analysis and street crimes units to target high-crime areas. 

DeCastro, on the other hand, has no experience in law enforcement ... at least, not from the good side.  You see, DeCastro is a convicted felon!  From the article:

Once sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery, he was pardoned by the governor in the 1990s and began running a re-entry center to help prison inmates ease back into society after their release. Besides sheriff, he has made unsuccessful bids for governor, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

Yes, you read this correctly.  This convicted felon and pro-gun extremist wishes to lead the Sheriff's Department.

During the campaign, and again Monday, DeCastro dwelled on the need for citizens to arm and protect themselves rather than relying on law enforcement. He also railed against the United Nations, the federal government and drones that could be used to spy on American citizens.

But gun rights dominated DeCastro's comments.

You don't say.  Sounds like he buys into the pro-gun conspiracy theory about the U.N. wanting to take away guns, too.  He continued:

"I believe in the 2nd Amendment," he said, "If any of you want to get armed, I will host a class. We'll all get armed, if that's what you want."

I don't feel comfortable with this extremist being in charge of anyone, much less law enforcement, nor do I feel comfortable with the idea of him owning a gun or giving gun classes.

Rehabilitating ex-cons to better fit into society is a noble goal which has been shown to reduce recidivism.  I support a program here in Eugene, called Sponsors, which does exactly that.  But what I don't support is allowing ex-cons, particularly those with a violent past, to lead our law enforcement agencies or serve in political positions.  Sorry, but there are plenty of excellent people without criminal pasts who fit the bill, like Blair.  I can't imagine Blair could lose with such an extremist opponent.  But in Florida, who knows?


UPDATE (11/7/12):  Chris Blair won the race for Marion County Sheriff against convicted felon Bernie DeCastro, by a very healthy margin (73 percent to 27 percent).  However, an anonymous complaint about an election law has been filed which will delay the final victory until an investigation is completed.  DeCastro claims not to be involved in that complaint.  More later.

The Pro-Gun Extremist's Opinion On "Law Enforcement" (Part I)

(Updated -- see below)

Pro-gun extremists and lobbies like the NRA like to talk about getting "tough on crime," mandatory sentencing, and "just enforcing the laws already on the books" (consider some of the "solutions" proposed by pro-gunners on my site previously, for instance). 

Yet, at the same time, they systematically disrespect our law enforcement professionals by opposing every measure that those law enforcement organizations support, such as re-enacting the Federal Assault Weapons ban, requiring mandatory background checks on all gun sales, and banning high-capacity ammo clips.  Here in Oregon, the extremist organization, Oregon Firearms Federation, even tried to remove the Oregon State Police from the background check system, bypassing an important part in identifying dangerous individuals (this is the same group who is trying to return gun rights to felons).  Pro-gun commenters on news sites and blogs regularly disrespect policemen, painting them as bungling, corrupt, or inexperienced, or out only to protect themselves.

Who would know better than our law enforcement officers about the dangers of guns on our streets?  According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, 101 officers have died in the line of duty so far this year.  36 were by gunfire, plus one accidental shooting.  Just a few days ago, one young officer was shot to death in the line of duty in New York.  According to the Violence Policy Center, collected from FBI data, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon (note that the data is collected from a different set of data, from previous years, than the Officer Down Memorial Page, which uses data from this year).  Here in Eugene, Oregon, last year, we lost a motorcycle policeman, Chris Kilcullen, when a dangerously mentally-ill woman who nonetheless was legally able to purchase a handgun shot and killed him during a traffic stop.

Our law enforcement personnel are heroes every day, putting themselves in harm's way to serve and protect us.  They are highly-trained to calmly deal with conflict situations, how to identify threats, how to minimize personal bias, and to know all the complex legal issues.  They have to maintain a proficiency with their weapons, and have to be regularly re-certified.  Most importantly, they are accountable to review of their actions.  These obvious facts separate them from the average citizen and help keep our communities safer.

But pro-gun extremists live in their own fantasy world, where they consider themselves better-trained, more accurate, and better able to protect themselves and others than the police.  They would rather see a world where everyone is armed and (as if everyone is willing to be a vigiliante) ready to shoot-to-kill anyone who seems to be a threat.  Who needs the police when you can be judge, jury, and executioner?  There are plenty of examples of gun guys playing "Wyatt Earp."  Just consider the recent idiotic statements about what they would have done "if only" they had been in the theater in Aurora, Colorado.

Case in point:  Earlier this year I posted about how citizens in southern Oregon were preparing to take the law into their own hands, by arming themselves and forming a posse, to fight a rash of property crimes with lethal force in the wake of cuts to local law enforcement.

Now they've made good on their promise.  Men in southern Oregon's Josephine County have now formed a posse of armed citizens to patrol their community:

"I believe in standing up for myself rather than waiting for the government to do something for me," said Sam Nichols, a retired marina manager. 

Nichols has organized a posse of about a dozen fed-up residents who have started patrolling the small community of O'Brien, which has about 750 residents.

"We call ourselves the CAC Patrol, Citizens Against Crime," he said.

In other words, they are tackling property crimes with deadly force by strapping on a handgun and slapping a gold star on the door of their vehicles.  But it gets even more shocking....

But neither Nichols nor Dickson think the sheriff would do a better job of protecting their end of the county with more resources. 

They both voted no on a tax proposal to make up the $12 million loss and say they would do so again if county commissioners brought the issue back up.

In this Oct. 12, 2012, photo, Sam Nichols, left, and Glenn
Woodbury pose in front of Woodbury's pickup in
O'Brien, Ore. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

Did you get that?  Even though they've received NO police training, legal training, or certifications, they feel they are better than the police.  So much so that they purposely voted against bond measures to fund their sheriff's department and jail, which in turn led to loss of sheriff patrols and jail beds that led to their justifications for living out their vigilante fantasy. 

Look at the picture of these two yahoos posing with their "patrol vehicle," taken from the article.  Do you see the haughty look on their faces?  Do you really want these guys protecting you?  Vigilante justice didn't work so well for Trayvon Martin, did it?  What sort of biases do these guys have?

And what does their sheriff think of their "patrol?"  From the article:

Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson says he's glad for the help but warns that law enforcement is dangerous work. 

"They need to really understand there are consequences that can be very costly, physically as well as legally," he said, explaining that volunteers could get sued or shot if they pull a gun on someone or make a false arrest.

"Most of them haven't had what I feel is an adequate level of training to do that they do," he said. "But if they serve as eyes and ears and only report what they see to law enforcement, I think they can keep themselves at a safe level." 

Policing expert Dennis Kenney, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says neighborhood watch efforts can be positive but turn into problems when volunteers "decide that instead of supplementing law enforcement, they are going to replace law enforcement. Then you cross potentially into vigilantism."

Kenney said vigilantes tend to get "out of control - especially when people are armed." 

He added that "people drawn to this sort of thing are the kinds of personalities more likely to take it too far."

Naturally, these gun guys deny that it's "vigilantism."  But the line was crossed when they decided to arm themselves.  Neighborhood watch is a great idea.  Preparing yourself to shoot robbers to death, on behalf of other people, is vigiliantism.

I'm waiting for the inevitable news article to come, telling me about a shooting down there in Josephine County, with one of these "Citizens Against Crime" vigilantes getting shot to death, or some innocent being targeted by them.

UPDATE (11/5/12):  Read Part II of this posting.


ADDENDUM (11/4/12):  As example of the pro-gun extremists' disrespect for law enforcement, see the comments left at the Ceasefire Oregon Facebook page for this blog post.  In response to the comment "How comfortable are you with the idea of armed posses roaming your neighborhood? That's what's happening in southern Oregon," a pro-gunner calling himself "Anthony Wilkes-Booth" posted the following reply:

A hell of a lot more comfortable than the armed and often belligerent gangs called police officers. At least the average citizen doesn't get to hide behind the powerful shield of qualified immunity and can be held accountable far more easily when they act inappropriately..

ADDENDUM (11/14/12):  Here is a better option than vigilante "posse" patrols:  Sheriff volunteer reserves, which are being used just north of the area mentioned in this post, up in Lane County, where I live.  The reserves are volunteers who have been trained by the Sheriff's department and are overseen by the Sheriff's department.

UPDATE (2/16/13):  Now a second "posse" has been formed in Grant county.  What could possibly go wrong?

UPDATE (11/6/13):  Once again, citizens in southern Oregon have rejected a public safety tax increase that would have funded their law enforcement and jail facilities, further reinforcing their vigilante mentality and sinking the county into increased crime rates.  It's so bad now that the county commissioners and governor may have to declare a public safety emergency and impose a tax.  The state (and it citizens) will have to pay for the rest.  This is quite ironic that they voted against the tax increase, given that these same southern Oregon citizens already enjoy the lowest property tax rate in the state.  Now they will live on the welfare provided by the rest of the state.  So much for those Libertarian ideals.

UPDATE (12/27/13):  As stated in a recent article, forces in Josephine County are increasing armed "citizen patrols", using the failed levy (which they wanted to fail) to justify the action.  The mythical Wild West is a reality in southern Oregon, instead of a civilized society ruled by law.  From the article:

Though the “response team” members do carry legal firearms, Selig said the team’s main goal is to provide a deterrent presence, and that none of them have ever fired a shot. He said those involved in his group believe there is no substitute for well-trained law enforcement, but they feel they have no other choice but to protect their community. ... 

Heck said though he supports neighborhood watch groups and citizens being vigilant in their community, the rise of increasingly “aggressive” community watch groups make him worried the situation could escalate to violence. Watch groups have been under increasing scrutiny nationally ever since the George Zimmerman case in Florida.  

“These things seem good on the PR side but fail a little in the reality side,” Heck said. 

Heck said the only real solution is for the county citizens to approve more funds.

.

Florida Sheriff Threatens To Shoot Political Opposition Yet Is Endorsed By The NRA

Sheriff Larry Campbell

Sheriff Larry Campbell has been sheriff of Leon County, Florida, for sixteen years.  He's running against Lisa Sprague for the position. 

Apparently Sheriff Campbell doesn't care much for Ms. Sprague.  According to an article published this week at ThinkProgress.org, Campbell jokes about using her for target practice:

I told somebody the other day we have police standards that we have to keep up, that we have to keep our pistol proficiency up. And we have to keep our other police professional standards up. And I had invited the other candidates if they don’t think I can do it, go down and let me shoot at you and see if I can do it any good.

Here is the audio (relevant portion is from 0:48 to 1:17):

He might think it's a "joke," but I'm not laughing.  This isn't some locker room bluster.  This is a longstanding public official in charge of public safety, giving a public speech. 

According to the article linked above, Campbell has also been accused of repeatedly referring to Ms. Sprague as "the Bitch."  Campbell denies calling her "the Bitch," but there's no denying his joke about using her as target practice.

It's no surprise, given his fast and loose talk about gun violence and his location in the "Gunshine State" that Sheriff Campbell is endorsed by the NRA's Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) and the United Sportsmen of Florida, as well as the infamous NRA lobbyist, Marion "Stand Your Ground" Hammer.  From Campbell's website, where he quotes the letter of support:

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) and United Sportsmen of Florida are pleased to inform you that both organizations have endorsed you for election to the Constitutional Office of Sheriff of Leon County.

We appreciate your support of Second Amendment, self-defense, and anti-crime issues.  It is your support of these important issues that has earned you our endorsement.

Hate talk should never be tolerated by any public figure.  The NRA, however, has a long history of turning a blind eye, or even promoting, such language.

Most of our law enforcement officers are professional and respectful people who understand the impact of their attitudes toward their profession.  What a shame that Sheriff Campbell isn't one of them.


ADDENDUM (9/13/12):  A related website on this issue, from ElectWomen.com.  You can find a webpage dedicated to Lisa Sprague HERE.

UPDATE (11/7/12):  Sadly, Campbell won the election, and by a wide margin, 69% to 31%.